The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Cotman Housing Association Limited (201909104)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201909104

Cotman Housing Association Limited

16 March 2021


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. request for compensation for damaged flooring following a sewage pipe leak;
    2. associated formal complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. A leak occurred in the resident’s bathroom in April 2019 and the landlord attended within 12 hours and repaired the leak, making an appointment for 21 May 2019 to ‘box in’ around the affected pipes.
  2. The resident complained on 6 August 2019, saying that he was still waiting for a reply about the repair to his hallway flooring and the ‘boxing in’ in his bathroom was very overdue and was booked in twice when engineers did not arrive or contact him. Engineers then called twice, unannounced, and not on the days booked.
  3. An interim complaint response was sent by the landlord on 11 September 2019, which confirmed the various failed appointments and apologised for poor communication, errors with text messages being sent and the frustration displayed by the Regional Maintenance Manager during a telephone call. The landlord confirmed that its operatives had reported no noticeable damage to the laminate flooring and that it was the resident’s responsibility to either make a claim through his own contents insurance, or arrange to replace the flooring. 
  4. In the landlord’s further response of 10 October 2019 it detailed the voicemails left for the resident regarding the repair issues and noted that he was asked to call the Customer Service Centre within 10 working days to arrange for the repair to be carried out.
  5. The following day, the resident emailed the landlord asking why its response took a month and saying that the issue of when the floor would be repaired had not been mentioned. He asked the landlord to contact him to make a new appointment rather than he, who was not at fault, having to sit on the telephone in a queue. He hoped that the reply would be before 21 October 2019. 
  6. In the landlord’s response of 14 October 2019, it said it would make contact within two working days, but the next email was not sent until 18 October 2019. The landlord asked if the resident would be available on 28 or 29 October 2019 and said that the operative would carry out ‘another inspection’ of the floor when carrying out the ‘boxing in’. The resident replied that the afternoon of 28 October 2019 would be suitable and highlighted that it would not be ‘another inspection’ as there had not been one before. 
  7. On 8 November 2019, the landlord was notified by this Service that the resident’s complaint was that the toilet had leaked over the bathroom and hallway floor and the landlord had not been to inspect it so he had been living with a sewage soaked floor for months. He had advised that the laminate flooring in the hall was soaked and smelled and he was concerned for his partner’s health as she was disabled and housebound and had no escape from the smell. He said the bathroom lino had peeled from the walls and the floor needed to be replaced. He wanted more than six months’ rent back as the property was uninhabitable. He also said there were issues concerning the Regional Maintenance Manager who said the landlord did not do flooring and hung up on him so he had complained about her behaviour. Further, there were unresolved issues about the flooring as the landlord said there was no visual damage, but it had never seen it and the resident had not had a reply to his email from six weeks ago.
  8. A further complaint response from the landlord was issued on 11 November 2019 (although detailed in the landlord’s letter of 25 August 2020 and on the accompanying email of 11 November 2019, no copy of this response has been provided to this investigation). It offered £75 compensation for service failure and delays in progressing the repairs, to be accepted by return of a signed form. On 25 November 2019 the resident replied by email requesting further compensation for the flooring. The landlord’s response advised that the Property and Compliance Manager would contact the resident to arrange an inspection of the laminate flooring. 
  9. On the same day, the resident emailed the landlord, accepting the £75 compensation and agreeing that the ‘boxing in’ had been resolved. However, he confirmed that he was awaiting the inspection of the floor as this was not inspected by the operatives who came to do the repair.
  10. The flooring was then inspected on 27 November 2019 and the landlord emailed the resident the following day, advising that it was awaiting the outcome of the inspection and would respond to his comments in his previous email by 3 December 2019.
  11. The Property and Compliance Manager, who inspected the floor, emailed the resident on 2 December 2019. He found that damage to the laminate was ‘hardly detectable’ (there was some slight surface discolouration/distortion of the laminate immediately adjacent to the joints) and it was not conclusive that this was caused by the leak and could have been caused by other events i.e. walking out of the bathroom with wet feet. Further, as the flooring was left by the previous tenant in good condition, the landlord accepted no ongoing responsibility for the flooring. It conceded that it should have made this clear at the time of sign-up by asking the resident if he accepted it and apologized that this was not done. However, as the flooring was not fitted by resident, regardless of how the damage occurred, he had suffered no loss, so no compensation was due.
  12. On 3 December 2019 an email was sent from the landlord saying the resident had been updated by email on the outcome of the inspection, closing letters had been sent to him, and it awaited the signed form accepting compensation. The resident replied to say that he had no letter, but felt the email admitted that the floor was the landlord’s responsibility and that there was damage there, ‘even if he tried to downplay it’. He therefore asked when arrangements would be made for its replacement. 
  13. There is no evidence of further communication in either direction until 8 July 2020 when the landlord’s internal email showed that the resident called to advise that the repair mentioned in his complaint last year had still not been done, and that the landlord was supposed to be fixing the flooring after a leak. The internal emails showed that the landlord had no job raised for this and that the resident would be taking the issue to the Ombudsman. Further emails discussed that the inspection had been carried out and the resident told that he would not be getting the flooring renewed as there was no damage to be seen or smell reported. 
  14. In the landlord’s email of 23 July 2020 (following a telephone conversation with the resident) it asked why he was not satisfied with the stage one response and what he would like as a resolution. In the resident’s response of the same day, he reiterated that his hallway floor had been soaked with sewage, had been left unaddressed since April 2019, and still required replacement with like-for-like flooring. He said the bathroom floor also needed to be refitted or replaced, and most of his emails had not been replied to. Finally, he suggested a refund of 1/6 of his rent as compensation, as one of six rooms had been uninhabitable.
  15. The landlord acknowledged the stage two complaint on 28 July 2020 and advised the resident to expect a response by 25 August 2020. The landlord’s records from 21 August 2020, indicated that there were no actions taken at stage two that could have been applied at stage one, but there were two key learning points: that ‘the deadline for the stage one response should have been extended until after the laminate flooring inspection had been carried out so that the stage 1 response was complete and answered all of the queries’; and that ‘the Functional Manager dealing with the stage 1 to ensure all correspondence received from the customer is responded to’.
  16. In the landlord’s stage two response of 25 August 2020, it made reference to telephone calls on 8 and 23 July 2020 and the stage one response. It said that it had no responsibility for the laminate flooring as the damage was hardly detectable and the flooring had not been installed by the resident. In light of there being no more contact from the resident since November 2019 (when he had emailed the landlord accepting the compensation), it had considered the matter fully responded to and the complaint closed without need for a further detailed investigation. It noted that the resident was yet to send back the signed acceptance for the £75, a copy of which was enclosed, and that the compensation would not be paid without the signed form, as per its compensation policy.
  17. The resident emailed the landlord the next day, to provide clarification as follows:
    1. If he had not telephoned in July 2020 his previous emails would not have been answered;
    2. The £75 accepted was just for the boxing in, as stated in his emails and not corrected by the landlord’s emails of 28 November or 3 December 2019;
    3. As the inspection was not carried out for 8 months, evidence that the damage was from the sewage leak was not apparent and he was not lying when he said that it was from the leak and not from wet feet;
    4. Although he did not fit the laminate floor, if he had to replace it, it would be a financial loss to him;
    5. It was not correct that he had not been in contact as per emails of 25 November and 4 December 2019, and the landlord’s response of 3 December 2019 did not cover all the issues and there was no reply to his 4 December 2019 email;
    6. His email acceptance of £75 should be enough, but at this stage he would not accept compensation until it was confirmed that this was for the boxing in and not the floor;
    7. There was no fact sheet about the Ombudsman with the landlord’s response.
  18. On 1 September 2020 the landlord emailed the resident to say it could not locate any further emails following the stage one response dated 25 November 2019. With the resident’s response of 7 September 2020, he provided copies of his earlier emails and stated that he was ‘dropped’ in December 2019 with no solution having been arranged. He said the landlord had admitted its initial investigation had confused the boxing-in complaint with the flooring complaint and so he wanted the matter looked at again and a more thorough response to his correspondence.
  19. In the landlord’s email of 9 September 2020, it advised that its complaints process was now finished and the resident could pursue his complaint with the Ombudsman.
  20. Internal emails on 11 September 2020 indicated that there were no notes on the landlord’s system to show that a manager had called the resident to update him after the inspection or further to the resident’s email of 3 December 2019. In light of this a further £50 compensation would be offered for its failure to respond to his email in writing, although there is no evidence that this offer was sent to the resident.
  21. On 16 September 2020, the resident emailed this Service, saying that the landlord admitted the compensation was for the ‘boxing in’ in the bathroom, not the flooring, and that he had contacted the landlord on 25 November 2019, and it had not responded. He said the landlord was standing by its stage one findings although it did not conclude stage one of the complaints process.

Assessment and findings

  1. The matter of the failed appointments and lack of communication between April 2019 (when the leak occurred) and October 2019 (when the pipe was boxed-in) is not covered in this investigation as the issues are not in dispute and £75 compensation has been offered by the landlord and accepted in principle by the resident (who is aware he will need to return the signed form before this will be paid). This is in accordance with the landlord’s Compensation Policy which says that, in order to process a one-off payment, a resident’s signature is required as confirmation of their bank details.
  2. This investigation is focussed on the resident’s request for compensation for the flooring following the leak, and the landlord’s handling of the associated formal complaint.

Damage to flooring

  1. The landlord’s Customer Handbook states that ‘minor leak from waste or supply’; ‘leaking from burst water or heating pipe tank or cistern’; ‘floors and stairs’; and ‘damage to timber floor’ are the landlord’s responsibility. There is no specific mention of removable floor coverings such as linoleum or laminate.
  2. The landlord has said that the flooring was left by the previous tenant, and that the landlord should have brought this to the resident’s attention to confirm that it had no maintenance responsibility for the flooring. It has apologised for not doing so, but this Service has considered that had this been correctly brought to the resident’s attention at the start of the tenancy, the option if he did not want the flooring to remain would be for it to be removed. Therefore, this error did not affect his position overall as the landlord would not have responsibility for floor covering above the timber floor. If the resident required laminate flooring it would have been at his own expense and if fitted and damage then shown to have been caused by the leak, the landlord could have legitimately considered this loss.
  3. Notwithstanding this, in its response of 11 September 2019, the landlord said that its operatives who called to fix the leak (the day it was reported) recorded no noticeable damage to the laminate floor. The resident has said that the operatives did not inspect the floor. In the absence of any documentary evidence to support either account, the Ombudsman is unable to reach any definitive conclusions. However, given that the resident had concerns about the flooring, it is likely that this would have been raised with the operatives and any particular signs of damage would have been recorded at that time.
  4. Together with the fact that a specific inspection of the flooring was then carried out in November 2019 and no damage was found, the Ombudsman concludes that there is insufficient evidence of the leak causing damage to the flooring which required the landlord’s attention. For example, no photographic evidence has been provided (which would be the most simple way of demonstrating alleged damage) or professional quotes to indicate the cost of rectifying the alleged damage. Whilst the resident submits that the room was not habitable for the duration, no evidence has been provided to support this position. Notwithstanding this, and as discussed above, the loss would not have been the responsibility of the landlord, as per its Customer Handbook.

Complaints handling

  1. In respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about the flooring, there was delay and misunderstanding, as has been acknowledged by the landlord. The resident made it clear in his email of 3 December 2019 that the issue of the flooring had not been resolved by the email the day before from the Property and Compliance Manager, and there is no evidence of a letter having been sent to him as had been stated by the landlord the same day.
  2. The landlord’s Complaints, Compliments and Suggestions leaflet advises that complaints will be acknowledged in two working days and a full response in ten working days. It further says that stage two complaints will be conducted by a senior manager and a written response provided in 20 working days. After the  resident made contact with the landlord on 8 July 2020, a call was not made to discuss the complaint until 23 July 2020, the stage two complaint acknowledged on 28 July 2020 and the complaint response not issued until 25 August 2020, both outside of the timescale given in the landlord’s leaflet. In addition, the resident advised that no leaflet with information about this Service was included with the stage two complaint response.
  3. The landlord’s Compensation Policy gives a list of suggested amounts for various service failures, including distress and inconvenience discretionary payments (£25 for missed timescales and £50 for lack of communication/staff attitude etc). The additional £50 discussed in the landlord’s internal email in September 2020 would appear to be in keeping with the recognition of a lack of communication, but the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that this offer was relayed to the resident. The delay in responding to the complaint about the flooring therefore runs from December 2019.
  4. Although the landlord has been clear from the email in November 2019 that it did not feel there was damage to the flooring, and that it had no responsibility for the flooring in accordance with its handbook, it did not allow the resident to proceed through its internal complaints procedure as it should. As a result, it should have acknowledged these failings within its complaint responses and made an offer of redress to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its sub-standard complaints handling.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s request for compensation for damaged flooring;
    2. service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the formal complaint.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £75 compensation in respect of its failure to progress his complaint in a timely manner.